|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the allocated budget for the Patient and Public Involvement Resource Centre is for 200506; and if she will make a statement. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: The Department is in the process of procuring a supplier to design, develop and deliver a new centre to support the delivery of patient and public involvement in heath care. We anticipate launching the centre in January 2006.
As we are in the middle of a procurement process, the details of the budget are commercially confidential.
28 Nov 2005 : Column 281W
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information will be available to patients under patient choice about (a) NHS providers and (b) private providers; whether it is her intention that information will be directly comparable; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: Patients will need comparative information for national health service and independent sector providers. For choice at referral, a basic set of information on access and location, waiting times and hospital performance will be available through nhs.uk and patient leaflets drawing on information currently available. The Department has already begun a programme of work to develop the more detailed comparative information, particularly on clinical quality, which patients will need as we increase choice in elective care.
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have not submitted patient safety data to the National Reporting and Learning System; and what action she will take to reduce this number. 
Jane Kennedy: As of mid-November 2005, about 75 per cent. of all national health service trusts in England have submitted data to the national patient safety agency's national reporting and learning system (NRLS). 146 NHS trusts have not yet submitted data.
The National Patient Safety Agency has appointed a network of patient safety managers to work with trusts in enabling them to report patient safety incidents to their local risk management system and then to the NRLS.
In addition the Healthcare Commission is reviewing NHS organisations against a set of core standards, the first one of which relates to safety. Reporting patient safety incidents to the NRLS is one of a set of criteria against which trusts are assessed.
We are considering what further action can be taken in the light of the National Audit Office report, A safer place for patients: Learning to improve patient safety," which draws attention to the level of reporting in acute, mental health and ambulance trusts in England. The report will be discussed in detail at a committee of public accounts hearing early in 2006. The Government will respond to the committee's subsequent report in the form of a Treasury minute.
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what administrative savings have been made by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust since its inception; and what the forecast figures were for such savings. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 21 November 2005]: The information requested is not held centrally.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the treatment of plagiocephaly; 
28 Nov 2005 : Column 282W
(2) if she will extend treatment for plagiocephaly to families with affected children in those primary care trusts that do not offer treatment. 
Mr. Byrne: There is a difference between positional plagiocephaly, where flattening of the skull is caused by pressure from the surface on which a baby is customarily laid and craniosynostosis, where the cranial sutures have closed prematurely. In the latter case, surgery may well be necessary to prevent future health problems. The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services sets out standards to ensure that primary care trusts (PCTs) base decisions about treatments on the best evidence available to them. Treatment for plagiocephaly is available should doctors and PCTs consider it necessary.
Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding per capita was given to (a) Chelmsford primary care trust, (b) Essex primary care trusts, (c) Eastern Region primary care trusts, (d) Greater London primary care trusts and (e) primary care trusts in England in the last two financial years for which figures are available. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 17 November 2005]: Revenue resource allocations per head of population to primary care trusts (PCTs) in these areas in 200405 and 200506 are shown in the table.
Allocations to PCTs are based on the population weighted for a number of factors. These factors include:
Revenue allocations for PCTs increased from £49.3 billion for 200405 to £53.9 billion for 200506; and are due a further increase to £64 billion in 200607 and £70 billion in 200708. Over the two years covered by this further allocation, PCTs will receive an average increase of 19.5 per cent.
|200405 allocation per head||200506 allocation per head|
|PCTs in Essex strategic health authority||905||1,082|
|PCTs in the Government Office for the East of England||889||1,061|
|PCTs in the Government Office for London||1,114||1,317|
|PCTs in England||986||1,172|
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to merge the four primary care trusts in Somerset. 
Strategic health authorities have recently submitted their proposals for the reconfiguration of primary care trusts, which set out how they intend to strengthen their commissioning function. The proposal
28 Nov 2005 : Column 283W
for Somerset is available from the Dorset and Somerset SHA. These proposals have been assessed by an independent external panel drawn from and representing a wide range of stakeholder interests, to determine whether the SHA proposals meet the criteria stipulated in Commissioning a Patient-Led NHS" (July 2005). Where the criteria are judged to have been met the proposals will go forward to a three-month public consultation. No decisions on the reorganisation of PCTs will be taken until this process has been completed.
Mr. Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the potential financial effects of the reconfiguration of primary care trusts. 
Mr. Byrne: We anticipate that boundary changes and a new focus on commissioning for primary care trusts (PCTs) will enable local organisations to make significant reductions in management costs.
Following reconfiguration of PCTs and strategic health authorities, we expect upwards of £250 million in savings to be invested back into local frontline services. This means that all over the country, PCTs will be able to decide with their clinicians how this extra money could be used to improve local services.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) medical errors and (b) reportable incidents involving (i) drugs and (ii) equipment in NHS hospitals there have been in Kent since 1997. 
Caroline Flint: It is only possible to provide data on the number of reportable incidents involving drugs and equipment. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) operates national systems for the collection and monitoring of adverse events related to drugs and devices. Both systems rely upon voluntary reporting of suspected adverse events by health professionals. Manufacturers with respect to devices and marketing authorisation holders with respect to drugs have statutory obligations to report suspected adverse events.
Table 1 shows the total number of suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports received via the yellow card scheme from 1997 to 2005 by year from hospitals in Kent.
The MHRA pharmacovigilance system does not differentiate between national health service and private hospitals. The number of reports received from Kent hospitals, therefore, includes day hospitals, private hospitals and hospitals that may now be closed.
The yellow card scheme is the United Kingdom system for collecting and monitoring information on suspected ADRs. The scheme is run by the MHRA on behalf of the committee on safety of medicines. The scheme relies upon voluntary reporting of suspected ADRs by health professionals and under statutory obligation by marketing authorisation holders.
Table 2 shows the number of medical device related adverse incident reports submitted to the MHRA from the NHS in Kent on a voluntary basis between mid-1999 and 2005. Information obtainable from electronic records created prior to mid-1999 does not distinguish reports from the NHS in Kent.
|Number of reports received from Kent hospitals|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|